"A PSYCHOLOGICAL STUDY OF SELF-ESTEEM AND

PERSONALITY TRAITS OF ORPHAN ADOLESCENTS"

*1 Km. Archana Dwivedi
** Dr. Sushma Srivastava
*** Dr. A.K. Srivastava

Child whose parents are dead is called orphan. Orphans are highly
deprived class of our society. Our opinions about child care vary parents
are generally deemed significant and concern is felt for children who are
deprived of either mother or father. This problem is called parental
deprivation. Children should not be deprived of it except for an urgent
and compelling reasons. The second world ware produced the problems
of orphans children with all its nakedness. Bowdey published the results
of his study in 1951 and created sensation throughout the world. Ethnic
riots in Columbia and communal and regional riots in Bengla Desh and
Assam have posed no less problems of orphans. In the similar way
Orissa (2000) also faced the same problem due to cyclone and Gujrat
(2001) too is facing the problem of orphan children due to recent Earth
quakes.

Orphans become a highly deprived class of society, but very few

psychological studies have been made in this area. The investigator in
the present study intends to study some psychological problems like self-
esteem and personality in order to see the effect of social and
psychological deprivation on orphan adolescents. Dixit and Moorjani
(1981) found that the socio-economic deprivation leads to lower self-
concept, Hassan M.K. (1977) have also found negative self-among socio
culturally deprived, self in the centre of personality around which all

* Research Scholar (Psychology), D.A.V. College, Kanpur.

** Reader in Education, V.S.S.D., College, Kanpur
*** Reader & Head (Psychology), D.A.V. College, Kanpur
systems are constellate effect of the deprivation on the self, will naturally
leads to unbalanced unstable and disintegrated personality among
orphans. Mc Call John (1999) made a study "Research on the
psychological effects of orphanage care: A critical review and found that
finally critics of orphanage care seem zealous to produce negative
evidence and generalize their findings to all orphans or orphanages.
Bhargava Mahesh (1995) made a study "Basic personality structure of
the deprived adolescents" and found that in comparison to HDA the LDA
Ss had developed beter covert and overt control over their behaviour as
indicators of their better covert experiential balance in their personality.
There were significant difference of personality structures t the group.
Folwarsk-John (1998) made a study "No longer an o than in history" and
no findings.

OBJECTIVE

Main objectives of the study is

1. To study the self-esteem of orphan adolescents.

2. To study the personality pattern of orphan adolescents.

HYPOTHESIS

1. There is significant difference in personally perceived self between

orphan and non orphan adolescents.

2. There is significant difference in socially perceived self between

orphan and non orphan adolescents.

3. Personality pattern of orphan's and non orphan adolescents do

differ significantly.
VARIABLES

Variable covered in the study

1. Tie independent variable in the present study is orphans state.

2. The dependent variables are self esteem and personality.

3. Controlled variables are age, sex, educational qualifications.

SAMPLE AND SAMPLING

The present study aims at estimating the self esteem and

personality patterns of hares and non orphans adolescents. For this
purpose, a sample size of 50 adolescents was taken. 25 orphan
adolescents who have no parents or guardian and are living in
orphanage of Kanpur City and 25 non-orphan adolescents from family
were random selected. Both male and female adolescents were be
included in the sample. Their ages was from 14 to 16 years. They were
studying in School/Colleges of Kanpur City. Both the groups were
matched on age, sex, education qualification.

TEST MATERIAL

To measure the self esteem and personality of orphans and non

orphans adolescents. Test of self-esteem standardized by G.P. Thakur
and H.S.P.Q. standardized by S.D. Kapoor, was used 't' Test was used for
statistical treatment of the data.

The present investigation is based on Ex-Post Facto Design.

RESULT & DISCUSSION

TABLE-A

Showing the mean scores of orphans and non-orphans on

personality perceived self and significant difference:

Groups Mean S.D. SE d 't' Level of Significance

Orphans 129.12 20.83
Non-Orphans 145.12 20.90 5.90 2.71 <0.05

In the above table No. 'A' the mean scores of personality perceived
self of orphans and non-orphans adolescents is 129.12 and 145.12
respectively. S.D. Score are 20.28 and 29.90 SEd score is 5.90 and 't'
score is 2.71. Which is significant at 0.05 level. This shows that
significant difference has been found in two groups. Hence my first
hypotheses is proved. It means deprivation may effect the development of
personally perceived self of the adolescents. A Significant difference in
two groups has been found.

TABLE-B

Showing the mean scores of orphans and non-orphans on Socially

perceived self and significant difference:

Groups Mean S.D. SE d 't' Level of Significance

Orphans 145.36 20.83
Non-Orphans 130.08 20.25 5.81 2.63 <0.05

In the above table No. 'B' the mean scores of socially perceived self
of orphans and non-orphans adolescents is 145.36 and 130.08
respectively. S.D. Score are 20.83 and 20.25 SEd Score is 5.81 and 't'
score is 2.62. Which is significant at 0.05 level. This shows that
significant difference has been found between two groups. Hence my
second hypotheses No. 'B' is proved i.e. socially perceived self of orphans
adolescents is lower than non-orphans.

Orphans adolescents who have all sources of deprivation like

parental, social, economic etc. and on another hand non-orphan
adolescents who are in better position on above variables. This might be
a factor which has effected their development of self esteem.

TABLE-C

Showing the mean score of orphans and non-orphans Adolescents

on personality traits and significant difference:

Factos A B C D E F G H I J Q Q2 Q3 Q4
Mean 4. 48 3. 04 4 . 04 5. 08 6. 18 4. 76 3. 72 4. 28 5. 92 7. 64 7. 84 5. 44 2. 84 6. 44
(orphans)
Mean (non 5. 64 3. 8 5. 2 5. 6 7. 5 4. 0 3. 04 4. 44 6. 12 4. 12 7. 16 5. 72 7. 08 6. 16
orphans)
SEd 0. 368 0. 247 0 . 344 0. 29 0. 483 0. 37 0. 30 6 0. 36 0. 44 0. 40 0. 57 0. 63 0. 39 0. 41
't' 3. 14 3. 04 3 . 41 1. 79 2. 79 2. 05 2. 19 0. 44 0. 45 8. 80 1. 92 0. 44 10. 87 2. 58
Level of < 0. 05 < 0. 05 < 0 . 05 < 0. 05 < 0. 05 < 0. 05 < 0. 0 5 < 0. 05 < 0. 05 < 0. 05 < 0. 05 < 0. 05 < 0. 05 < 0. 05
Significance

The above table 'C' shows difference in personality traits between

orphans and non-orphans adolescents. Out of fourteen factors on nine
factors significant difference was found i.e. on factor
A,B,C,E,F,G,J,Q3,Q4. On Factor 'A' orphans and non-orphans group
have mean stennie scores of 4.48 and 5.64. This shows that orphans
non-orphans are average on trait A i.e. Reserve Vs Out-Going but a
significant difference has been found on the level of this trait. On factor
'B' the mean stennie scores of A & B group is 3.04 and 3.8 respectively. It
means both groups have less Social Intelligence and have Concrete
Thinking but orphans are less Intelligent than non orphans because a
significant difference on the level of this trait was found. On Factor 'C'
the man stennie scores of both groups is 4.04 & 5.2. This shows that
orphans are affected by feelings and non-orphans are average on this
trait i.e. Emotionally less stable Vs Emotionally stable and a significant
difference has been found on this trait. As far on Trait 'D' is concerned
mean stennie scores are 5.08 and 5.6 which shows that both groups are
average on this trait i.e. orphans and non-orphans are Phlegmatic and
Excitable and no significant difference between group A and B has been
found. On Factor 'E' the mean stennie scores are 6.18 and 7.5. This
shows that orphans are average and non-orphans are Assertive,
Independent and a significant difference has been found on this trait. It
means non orphans are more Assertive and Independent in comparison
to orphans adolescent. In the same way Factor 'F' shows mean stennie
score is 4.76 and 4.00. It shows that non orphans are more Sober,
Prudent and Serious than orphans. A significant difference has been
found on this trait. On Factor 'G's mean stennie scores are 3.72 and 3.04
it means both groups are Expedient and Evades Rules. But the level is
different as a significant difference was found. It means non-orphans are
more Expedient than orphans adolescents. In the same way on Factor 'H'
the mean stennie scores of A & B groups is 4.28 and 4.44 this shows
that orphans and non-orphans are Shy, Restrained, Timid and
significant difference on has been found. As Factor 'I' is concerned mean
stennie scores 5.92 and 6.12 which is shows that both groups are
average i.e. Tough Minded Vs Tender Minded and no significant
difference has been found. On Factor 'J' the mean stennie scores are
7.64 and 4.12. It means orphans are Doubting Obstructive and non-
orphans are Viggrous, Goes Reality with group, and a significant
difference has been found on this factor. So they are on opposite pole of
this trait. On Factor 'Q' the mean stennie scores are 7.84 & 7.16 which
shows that both groups are Apprehensive, Worrying, Depressive on this
trait. No significant difference has been found. On factor 'Q2' the mean
stennie scores are 5.44 and 5.72. This shows that both group are average
i.e. group Depended Vs Self Sufficient. So no significant difference has
been found at level 0.05 level. Factor 'Q3' shows the mean stennie score
which are 2.84 and 7.08 this shows that orphans are Undisciplined
suffer from Self conflict and non-orphans are Controlled and self
Discipined and a Significant difference has been found in this trait. On
Last Factor 'Q4' the mean stennie scores are 6.44 and 8.16 which shows
that non orphans are more Tense Trustrated in comparison to orphan
and a significant difference has been found in this trait.

Hence on the basis of analysis it has been found that orphans and
non orphans mean stennie scores on out 14 of traits a significant
difference on 9 traits i.e. factors A,B,C,E,F,G,J,Q3,Q4 has been found.
Analysis further reveals that inspite of significant variation on traits
score both group were found in same category on A,B,G,Q4. It means
that significant difference is mean stennie traits score indicate the
difference of level on same trait.

As far as personality pattern is concern it has been shows on

personality profile of orphans and non-oprhans. According to personality
profile orphans are low on B,C,G,H, and Q3. It means orphans are less
Intelligent, Concrete Thinking, Affected by feeling, Expendient, Shy,
Timid, Vndisciplined and Self Conflict on these trait. In the same way
orphans are average on traits, A,D,E,F,I,Q2. Show that they are Reserved
>Outgoing, Fhlegmatic>Excitable, Obedient<Assertive, Sober>Happy GO
lucky, Tough Minded <Tender Minded and Group Dependent Vs Self
Sufficient. Orphans are high con trait J,Q, Q4. which shows orphans are
Doubting, Apprehensive, Tense and Frustrated.

In the same way according to personality profile non orphans they

are low on trait B,F,G,J. This shows non orphans are less Intelligent,
Sober, Expedient, and Viggrous on these traits Non Orphans are average
on traits A,C,D,H,I, Q2 & Q4. It means non orphans are Reserved Vs
Outgoing, Affected by Feeling <Emotionally Stable, Phlegmatic Vs
Excitable, Shy>Vehturesome, Tough-Minded<Tender Minded, Group
Dependent < Self Sufficient and Released < Tense has been found. And
they are high con trait E,Q, & Q3. This shows that they are Assertive
Independent, Apprehensive and Controlled.

CONCLUSION

On the basis of above discussion of the findings of study shows

that there is significant difference between orphans and non-orphans
adolescents in self-esteem.

As per as personality pattern of orphan and non-orphan

adolescents is concerned the difference is apparent on factors,
A,B,C,E,F,G,J,Q3,Q4 because these factors have significant difference.
REFERENCE

1. Hassan M.K. (1979). Indian Journal of Personality Human

Development Vol. 1, 42-56.
2. Dorothy Rogers (1969, 1977) Child Psychology 333-336 (Second
Edition.)
3. Dixit R.C. and Moorrani (1981) Psycho — Lingua Vol. (2).
4. Henry E. Gerrte Wood worth (1995) Statistics in Psychology 8
Education 11th Edition 252-258.
5. Folwarski- John (1998). Revisioning family therapy: Race Culture,
and gender in clinical practice pp. 239-252.
6. Bhargava-Mahesh, Saxena - Anju, 1995 (Jul.) Journal of projective
psychology and mental health Vol, 2(2) : 159-164.
7. Mc Call, - N, Rethinking orphanages for the 21st century, 1999,
127-150.
 "A PSYCHOLOGICAL STUDY SELF- ESTEEM,
NEUROTICISM AMONG DEPRIVED ADOLESCENTS"
(ORPHANS)

2* Km. Archana Dwivedi

** Dr. A.K. Srivastava
*** Dr. Shushma Srivastava

Home life is the highest and it product of civilization. Children

should not be deprived of it except for an urgent and compelling reasons.
The second world war produced problems of deprived children (omhan)
with all its nakedness, Bowdey published the result of his study in 1951
and created - sensation throughout the world. Ethic riots in columbia
and Communal and regional riots in Bengla Desh and Assam have
passed no less problems of orphans. In the similar way Orissa (2000)
also faced for the same problems due to cyclone, and Gujrat (2001) tools
facing the problem of children being orphans due to recent Earthquakes.

Orphans are highly deprived class of our society. But very few
psychological studies have been made in this area. Researches on
deprivation have shown that any sort of deprivation parental,
neuroticism and other negative personality traits. It has also created the
problem of adjustment among adolescents.

PARENTAL DEPRIVATION

While opinions out child care vary parents are generally deemed
significant and concern is felt for children who are deprived of either

* Research Scholar (Psychology), D.A.V. College, Kanpur.

** Reader & Head (Psychology), D.A.V. College, Kanpur.
*** Reader in Education, V.S.S.D. College, Kanpur.
mothers or fathers. This problem called parental deprivation, may have
relevance to any age, but it has aroused most controversy where infants
are concerned.

Until recently, the subject of parental deprivation related chiefly to

mothers, To question the virtue of mothering, become the worst heresy
since stokes challenged our kinship with monkeys. Great concern has
been aroused over various forms of maternal deprivation - for example
when a mothers death required institutionalization of the infant. Certain
studies, especially a Classic one by spitz (1946), heightended, interest in
the problem. Among children who had been institutionalized as infants.
Spitz reported a significant retardation in physical development and
motor and language skill, as well as a high mortality rate.

In few years increasing attention has been paid to paternal

deprivation. On study (Mc Card & Thurber, 1962) disclosed a correlation
between paternal absence and feminine identification, aggressiveness,
anxiety about sex and oral tendencies. Carlsmith (1964) reported a some
what different feminizing effect of father absence on boys. Such boys, he
found do better in verbal areas than in mathematics. Nevertheless,
whether or not the father is absent, the mother plays an important role
in the boy's development of a masculine sex role (Biller & Bahm, 1971).
Boys whose are fathers are absent and whose mothers encourage
aggressiveness have a high masculine self-concept, but those whose
mothers do not encourage aggressiveness ih.ave low masculine self-
concept. Other studies report a connection between father absence and
delinquency.

Dixit an d Moorjani (1981) found that the socio-economic

deprivation leads to lower self-concept, Hassan M.K. (1977) have also
found negative self-among socio culturally deprived, self is the centre of
personality around which all systems are constellate effect of the
deprivation on the self, will naturally leads to unbalanced unstable and
disintegrated personality among orphans.

A case of traumatic neurosis of the left index finger tip was

recorded because of covert maternal deprivation by slaughter, William G
& Cordes Charles K. (1977), Basu (1978) also found the effect of
deprivation of parental love on children Mazumdar (1981) reported
separation of child from mother results is stress. A. K. Srivastava (1988)
made a study on self discloser among orphan and non-orphan
adolescents and found that neuroticism is widely prevalent among both
orphaned and non-orphaned adolescents. Roger T. Johnson, David W.
Johnson', (1981) made a study "Effect of cooperative, competitive and in
individualistic experience on self-esteem of Handicapped and non-
handicapped students a d found that handicapped students reported
higher self-esteem than non-handicapped students.

Objective

In view of the above discussion, the specific objectives of present

study:

1. To study the self-esteem of Deprived adolescents.

2. To study the level of neuroticism among deprived adolescents.

Hypotheses

1. There is significant difference in personally preceived self-esteem

between deprived and non-deprived adolescents.
2. There is significant difference in socially preceived self-esteem
between deprived and non-deprived adolescents.

3. Deprived adolescents suffer more from neuroticism in comparison

to non-deprived adolescents.

METHODOLOGY

Variables covered in the study:

1. The independent variable in the present study is deprivation.

2. The dependent variables are self-esteem and neuroticism.

3. Controlled variable are age, sex, education.

Design- The present design is Ex-post facto design.

Sample & Sampling

The present study aims at estimating the self-esteem and

neuroticism among deprived and non-deprived adolescents. For this
purpose a sample size of 100 adolescents was taken. 50 deprived
adolescents who have no parents or guardian and were living in
orphanage of Kanpur & Lucknow city, and 50 non-deprived adolescents
from family were randomly method. Thus the total number of sample was
100. The non-deprived adolescents were selected from Kanpur Vidya
Mandir & Jai Narayan Vidya Mandir, Kanpur. Both male and female
adolescents will be included in the sample size. Their ages was from 14
to 16 years. They were studding in school / colleges of Kanpur city. Both
the groups were matched on age, sex, education and qualification.
Tool Used:

To measure the self-esteem and neuroticism of deprived and

nondeprived adolescents. Test of self-esteem develop by G.P. Thakur and
Eysenck personality questionnaire of neuroticism was used.

Scoring

The self-esteem scale and Eysenck personality questionnaire were

scored as per the instructions given in the respective manuals.

RESULTS & DISCUSSION

Table-1: Showing the mean scores of deprived and non-deprived on

personally perceive self and significance difference:-

Groups Mean S.D. SEd 't ' l e v e l of

significance
Deprived 14 5. 7 19. 798
3. 9467 0. 020 > 0. 05
Non-Deprived 14 5. 66 19. 670

In the above table No. 1 the mean scores of personally perceived

self of deprived and non-deprived adolescents is 145.7 and 145.66
respectively. S.D. scores are 19.798 and 19.670 SEd score is 3.9467 and
't' score is 0.020 which is insignificant at 0.05 level. This shows that no
significant difference has been found in two groups. Hence my
hypothesis No.1 is rejected. Deprivation may not effect the development
of personally perceived self of the adolescents as no significant difference
in the two groups has been found.

Table-2: Showing the mean scores of deprived and non-deprived on

socially perceived self and significance difference.
 Groups Mean S.D. SEd 't ' l e v e l of
significance
Deprived 14 2. 20 19. 052
0. 226 > 0. 05
Non-Deprived 14 3. 12 21. 502 4. 063

In the above table No. 2 the mean scores of socially perceived self of
deprived and non deprived adolescents is 142.2 and 143.12 respectively
and S.D. Scores are 19.052 & 21.502 SEd score is 4.063 and 't' score is
0.226 which is in significant at 0.05 level. This shows that no significant
difference has been found between two groups. Hence my hypothesis no.
2 is rejected. Orphans adolescents who have all sources of deprivation
like parental, social economic etc. and other adolescents who are in
better position on above variable but since their education level,
schooling, age, social culture is the same. This may be a factor who has
not effected their development of selt-esteem.

It was found in my study that there is no difference between

deprived and non-deprived adolescents having self-esteem. Now-a-days
non deprived adolescents do not have good relations with their parents
because both mother and father go to service and they have no time for
their child at home. That's why these children have not good interaction
with their parents whether they live in family or separately. On the other
hand deprived adolescents who are living in orphanage behave like
brother or sister with peer group and solve their problems together, and
they have good interaction with manager. Rather they have no family but
they have familiar atmosphere. So there no difference was found in both
group of self esteem Deprived and non-deprived. Hence my first and
second hypothesis is rejected.
Table-3: Showing the mean scores of deprived and non-deprived on
neuroticism and significance difference.

Groups Mean S.D. SEd 't ' l e v e l of

significance
Deprived 23 . 9 11. 17
0. 355 > 0. 05
Non-Deprived 23 . 16 9. 5926 2. 083

In the above table No. 3 the mean scores of neuroticism of deprived

and non-deprived is 23.9 & 23.16, S.D. scores are 11.17, 9.5926, SEd is
2.083 and 't' score is 0.355 which is insignificant at point 0.05 level. This
shows that Deprived adolescent not suffer more from neuroticism in
comparison to non-deprived adolescent. Hence my hypothesis no. 3 is
rejected.

The results show that there is no significant difference was found

in both groups in neuroticism. It is observed that deprived & non-
deprived both type of adolescents face the same problems in mordern
society and also face frustrations, stress and conflict. Where ever
deprived adolescents are deprive to their mother and father. In the same
way non-deprived adolescents face different types of frustration even
though they live with their parents. For example frustration during the
examination is equal in both groups. That's why non deprived
adolescents also suffer from neuroticism. Hence my hypothesis third is
rejected.

Rejection of hypothesis may be due to small number of sample

taken.
CONCLUSION

In the above discussion of the finding study the results shows that
there is no significant difference between deprived and non-deprived
adolescents in self-esteem and neuroticism.

REFERENCE

1. Fincham, F.D. 1982 (Jan.) Journal of Genetic Psychology Vol. 140

(2).
2. Hassan M.K. (1979). Indian Journal of Personality Human
Development Vol. 1, 42-56.
3. Dorothy Rogers (1969, 1977) Child Psychology 333-336 (Second
Edition.)
4. Srivastava A.K. Kumar Awadhesh 1985, 1986 (Jul.) Indian
Psychological Review Vol. 30 (4) 42-48.
5. Slaughter, William G & Cordes Charies K. 1977 (Oct.) American
Journal of Psychiatry Vol. 134 (10) 1152-53.
6. Basu A. (1981), Samiksa 35 (1) 3-20.
7. Dixit R.C. and Moorrani (1981) Psycho — Lingua Vol. (2).
8. Henry E. Gerrte Wood worth (1995) Statistics in Psychology 8
Education 11th Edition 252-258.